To: carbionmanRe: Denis NealeHow would a player with a "simple" game exhibit "smartness"?It would seem to me the a "complex, varied" game would be needed to exhibit "smartness".And that a "simple" game that wins exhibits "physcial giftedness".Thanks.

I saw him play a few times in the mid-70s. His game was simple in that, as I said in my earlier post, he had a relatively small range of strokes. He would also always play close to the table. Where he was smart was in his length,speed and placement - moving players in and out as well as side to side. He had great touch and could do deft blocks off strong loops. He would do 'look-away'/faker shots.

When I saw him he was the oldest player in the British team and looked slightly portly but apparently he could easily beat the younger (and very fit) players at sprinting - so I gather he also had a degree of physical giftedness.

The player with a simple game may have exhibited their smarts in the design of the simple game itself. If the few elements they use combine is a way that brings their strengths in to play vs the weaknesses of many other players with varied styles, that's smart.

Have you ever played someone who isn't that "good," but somehow you always seem to end up playing his game and feeling uncomfortable, like you can't get your good strokes going?

Here it is mostly at tournaments, but sometines just in the club, a guy will say, "I lost but I'm better than him." I take that as a sign of a smartness imbalance.

_________________Table tennis, as we find it, is far too hard for us. It brings too much pain, too many disappointments, impossible tasks.

Pandit appears to be still playing but not quite as much. When I played him on 2016 I think he was using Spectol. Not sure of his blade though.

The last I heard Denis Neale was playing in hardbat events but of course he used short-pips with sponge in his earlier days. He was freakish and probably the smartest player I have seen. His game was very simple - flat-hit fh and bh and a little topspin roll against backspin. He may have used a chop defence at some time but I dont think he would have in his prime. He had wins over Hasegawa and Surbek who, along with Secretin, were the best lobbers in the world.

The point the writer was making was that though Denis Neale never used chop defence, he COULD do it, and knew how to use it to the point where he could use it as a "Plan B" for times when it was needed. Since this was a book of instruction, the author was saying that although one might never actually use certain strokes, it's still worthwhile to learn to do ALL of them just in case you do need them.

bbkon wrote:

Can you post what pips and blade are using the players you re talking to?

Yan Jun used some sort of 1970s Chinese blade. Probably basswood and heavy. Probably Double Happiness (today known as DHS). It was round in shape. The rubber, I'm not sure. Chinese pips out of some sort. He had topsheets to sell, but I wasn't around the one time he brought them out. He said something quite interesting - apparently quality control wasn't very good, so you'd try several sheets of sponge until you found one you liked. And then you'd change the topsheet from time to time but keep the same sheet of sponge.

Clark Yeh? No idea, but I think it was the same general type of blade and rubber. He must've been in his later teens at the time, and was getting quite tall (he was maybe 10 or 11 when I first started attending tournaments in the area).

NotLikelyToLoop wrote:

To: carbionmanRe: Denis NealeHow would a player with a "simple" game exhibit "smartness"?It would seem to me the a "complex, varied" game would be needed to exhibit "smartness".And that a "simple" game that wins exhibits "physcial giftedness".Thanks.

Can't say I've ever seen him play (though I read his book, which went WAY beyond the usual "how to do strokes" and "strategy", and got into such topics as conditioning). I imagine someone with a "simple game" that mainly involves two strokes can show smartness by using speed and angles - perhaps forcing opponents out of position before hitting the winner wide to where they couldn't reach it. And there's always serve and return, and forcing weak returns for third and fifth ball kills.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Jump to:

Copyright 2018 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.